Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7377263" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Or perhaps that there are more ways than one to get to the same results of play? Because I look at what both of you are posting, and thing that while the mechanics you use are different, the results can be the same.Looking through both of your posts (and others), the reality is that in all cases, the GM has an influence on the fiction. The methods might be different, but by inclusion/omission alone, the GM will direct the fiction in some fashion. How much, or perhaps how directly, the players have an impact on the fiction might vary.In an example like the flagstones, I think that in many games (including [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s, but I could be wrong), there are times where the players will ask to do something ("I want to examine the flagstones in this area, something seems off to me") that the GM has to react to. In some games, they very well could just default to nothing out of the ordinary, since nothing has been pre-authored. And for many (most?) casual players, by which I mean they use the rules as written to simply run a published adventure "as is"), this very well may be the case. But I think that when presented with a question like this, many GMs will respond with improvisation. As I considered threads like this, it occurred to me that I as a DM would often default to "no" simply because I hadn't considered whether there would be anything there. However, when thinking about it afterwards, I'd often think that I should have:1 - At least developed the scene. That is, describe the search and what they found (or didn't), rather than just say, "no, or you found nothing"2 - Consider the setting, the NPCs, etc. I can't pre-author everything (and don't). So would somebody have hidden something here?3 - My world-building helps determine whether there should be something there. Or more likely, whether there shouldn't be. I think there are few GMs or players that would object to the GM placing something that wasn't pre-authored in this scenario. Where I think you and I would differ is that, assuming something is found, you would tie it into the current narrative. I, on the other hand, would consider that possibility, mentally (even subconsciously) assign a probability, and then decide if it is related to the current narrative, or something unrelated. In which case it might head off on an entirely new and different direction, should the players/characters choose. Or it might lead nowhere, leaving no clues (or undetected clues) as to its origin, whatever "it" might be.The fact is, I think in many games, the player do contribute to the fiction in this and similar manners. Again, if you're simply running a published adventure, and that's what the players are enjoying, there's little reason for more. That's not to say that they can't do more, but it's probably not necessary.However, for the types of campaigns we're talking about, I think there's generally an element of the player's impacting the fiction during the course of play. And each group has a sort of middle ground where they are comfortable allowing the players to have more influence. A common area is something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has alluded to. The players are free to make assumptions about the world around them:"We're in a city, I want to go to the bazaar" - the play moves toward the bazaar."I'd like to find my friend, Bob" The PCs go to places they might find Bob."I'd like to search the library for secret hiding places, compartments or doors"These are exploration-type things. But it can include story elements too:"I'd like to spend some time in the tavern to get a lay for the political state of affairs" - Where the DM might not have considered the politics of this town prior to the request"I think we can get more out of this thug if we can locate his family or friends, let's let him get away and try to find his local haunts" Where the DM might not have considered the local relationships of the thug, nor his usual movements.Or my recent favorite:"My chronic drinker is temporarily magically immune to the effects of alcohol, I wonder if we can find anybody who deals drugs in the caravan?" - Nope, I didn't see this coming at all (and the session where this particular character developed the problem was months ago...)What differs, I think, is how explicitly the players have control over the fiction. In my case it's a mix. They have full control over their character's decisions and actions, and by extension, the narrative itself. They have further influence because I try to work things that they think of or say during the course of play back into the narrative. What we don't like as a group, are scenarios that seem too contrived. That each scene or event has a direct impact on their current narrative direction.This is most evident in terms of style of play, where somebody like [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], or I prefer to let the characters explore the world more continuously. The GM doesn't fade from one scene to the next, nor put the PCs in a perilous position, without the players consent.As an example, the drug scenario occurred once the players decided which characters they were using that night (as they started in their home town), and the characters initially determined that they would be able to gather some information regarding their planned trip to Llorkh in the caravan that arrived from there a day or so earlier. One of them also had a plates from some brigandine armor where the leather parts had decayed, and wanted to see if he could either do something with them, or sell them.I know that they can definitely gather some information, since the caravan just came from Llorkh. I also "know" that there would be shady individuals, and not-shady individuals, that there would be different types of information available depending on who they asked, and how they went about it. I didn't have any specific information in mind, this is simply because of what I (and they) know about the current state of the world around them. After establishing a little better, through questions, what sort of information they were looking for, I could have framed the scene around a merchant that had some information of note. I could tie this to skill checks that would set the level of trust between them, and give me a good idea of the amount and quality of the information. The information itself would have to be improvised within the context of what I know of the current backstory.I, on the other hand, don't want to assume that's the direction they would go. While it would make life easier for me, and keep them more "on track," with their stated goals, it was my decision to soft frame it - "so you're walking up to the caravan grounds, where do you go, who do you talk to or search out, really, how are you going about getting this information?" My expectation is that they would decide what type of person - merchant, porter, guard, pilgrim, etc. that might be a good starting point for the information. Instead it was a wistful musing from a sorcerer who had found himself sober for more than a week longer than he wanted to be wondering if he could find another way to dull his senses.Had I framed it solely for the "needs of the narrative", this would never have happened. By too tightly framing the scene, it eliminates other options. On the other hand, you can't describe everything. The real art of GMing is finding the right balance between tight framing and exploration, of which choices to present, and which ones not to.The direction the fiction took was probably 80% them, and 20% me. They lacked funds for such an endeavor, since such contraband was rare in such a small town. That necessitated an alternate means of acquiring the goods, in which one option turned out to be taking care of something for the merchant. They debated trying to steal it, but decided that doing some work wasn't an unreasonable request. They either didn't consider that work for a drug dealer might be less than legal, and potentially dangerous, or if they did, they didn't care. When performing the job, I had assumed (or would have allowed) for them to be at least armed, if not in their armor. But when things went south, they made the decision that there wouldn't have been any compelling reason to them to head home first and get their armor and weapons. They had gone to wander around the caravan grounds looking for information, and agreed to transport some goods to their destination. When presented with some orders (with coercion) from the recipient of the contraband, and after they received payment, two of them agreed to the further work, while the other agreed to return the payment to the dealer. Which led to one sorcerer to brewing some tea of questionable legality by himself, while the other two wandered unarmed into the Underdark.None of this was really pre-authored on my part. The job that he wanted done was a criminal racket I had thought of years ago but never used. It seemed like a good fit here. Beyond that, it was driven, as usual, almost entirely by the players, with my job to adjudicate whether it was possible.As a D&D DM, this is really what I think has been promoted all along, starting with the AD&D DMG for me: When the players declare what they are doing or want to do, the DM sets a probability, and adjudicates accordingly. If it's a significant chance of success or failure, I usually just go with what's appropriate. If the characters have skills or other relevant modifiers to the circumstance, I take that into account. If the probability is somewhere in the middle, then I'll roll.Again, the world-building aspect, or backstory, helps me adjudicate these scenarios. For example, in an isolated town of 300 or so, what's the likelihood of finding drugs? Slim for anything significant, but probably decent for some local herb with minor hallucinogenic properties, real or perceived. This was a specific question of one of the players, and they went to collect what they could on the way, since one of the characters was a ranger-type who knows the area well. The likelihood of finding them in a caravan coming from a town of questionable lawfulness, that is willing to trade in things that would be illegal elsewhere, yes, something more substantial may be present. It took a considerable amount of investigation to find somebody that could help, and then a lot of persuasion to be able to make some sort of deal.Again, I don't think this has anything to do with agency. It's about who has control of the narrative, when, and by how much. So the players can control the narrative in my campaign any time they want, simply by making a decision and acting. Based on the setting as they understand it (and again, this is where world-building comes in, even if it's as simple as describing the setting as similar to 900 AD vikings, or whatever), they can make educated decisions about what things are more likely to be successful.  The ironic thing, seems to be that the more you go toward a Burning Wheel approach, it seems like the players have more impact on the fiction, having a freer hand in their development of it, they also seem to have less impact on the direction of the narrative itself, based on limitations imposed by the GM's framing. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad. It's just a different priority. The players are giving up freedom (you might want to call it agency) in determining how they get to someplace, exploration, and certainly many opportunities for other stories, for the benefit of a more tightly "composed" narrative. The fat is trimmed, but so are options.And that goes back to not talking about "player agency" so much, and talking about what sort of approach the players like in their narrative. Do they like a comic book (or soap opera) approach where the scenes are tightly framed, and jump from important scene to important scene, or a more exploratory approach, a wide-angle view if you'd like, a la Jordan or Tolkien where the journey, and how they get there is as important as the fact that they get there?</blockquote>

Verification